{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104755",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-07-29 08:54:14",
    "domain_names": [
        "bnpparibasam-au.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "BNP PARIBAS"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Max Arnolt"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is an international banking group with a presence in 65 countries, and one of the largest banks in the world. With nearly 190 000 employees and €46.2 billion in revenues, the Complainant stands as a leading bank in the Eurozone and a prominent international banking institution. BNP PARIBAS ASSET MANAGEMENT is the investment management branch of the Complainant, managing 522 billion EUR in assets.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered with privacy or proxy service on January 28, 2022, well after the registration of the Complainant's BNP PARIBAS Trademark, by an individual residing in the UK.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website and has been used in a phishing scheme for sending fraudulent e-mails impersonating the Complainant and its employees.\r\n\r\nThe facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, since it incorporates in its entirety the Complainant’s registered and well-known BNP PARIBAS Trademark. The mere addition of the letters \"AM\", standing for asset management, and \"AU\", standing for Australia, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has nothing to do with the Complainant, nor has been licensed or authorised to register or use the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not correspond to the Respondent's name, nor is this latter commonly known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website and the Respondent has used it in a phishing scheme to pass himself off as one of the Complainant’s employees, obtain personal information and receive undue payment. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a non-commercial or fair use under the Policy.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant contends that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the BNP PARIBAS Trademark, it is unlikely that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant's mark when he had registered the disputed domain name confusingly similar to such mark. To the contrary, the Respondent has used the disputed domain to send phishing e-mails. Therefore, it is clear that the disputed domain name has been registered and used with bad faith intention.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, therefore, requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Avv. Ivett Paulovics"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-09-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is owner of the following trademarks:\r\n\r\n- international trademark (word) BNP PARIBAS no. 728598, registered since February 23, 2000, in classes 35, 36, 38;\r\n\r\n- international trademark (device) BNP PARIBAS no. 745220, registered since September 18, 2000, in classes 9, 35, 36, 38;\r\n\r\n- international trademark (word) BNP PARIBAS no. 876031, registered since November 24, 2005, in classes 9, 35, 36, 38.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <bnpparibas.com>, registered since September 2, 1999, and used as its main website.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant conducts its business under the company \/ trade name BNP PARIBAS (SA).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s above-mentioned rights are hereinafter collectively referred to as the BNP PARIBAS Trademark.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "BNPPARIBASAM-AU.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}